Socialist countries generally have better safety nets, like China. Even Cuba, poor and sanctioned as it is, takes better care of its poorest than capitalist countries do.
Which is true, and requires analyzing them in context of their peer countries. Imperialist countries have inflated living standards due to taking huge amounts of super-profits from the global south, therefore comparison isn’t going to be even anyways. Comparing Cuba with other Latin American countries makes a lot of sense, trying to grab “the best” of each like history is just a static snapshot and doesn’t matter is horrible for trying to see which is better.
I’m just saying that right now the best of capitalist countries beat the best of the socialist ones, at least if that best example is China (which isn’t great tbh). In theory in the future etc. but like right now.
Why would that make any sense for a kind of comparison between capitalism and socialism? Why not compare peers? And additionally, China does have good quality of life, and again is rapidly improving.
Well you’d want to see what’s currently best available. At this time, there’s countries that are doing better than best of socialist countries. Maybe it’ll change at some point, I know theoretically it should. But we don’t want to go into wild speculation
Saying that socialism is a more effective system than capitalism and that socialist countries provide better for the working classes than capitalist ones is the statement I made, and is true. Comparing “the best” (whatever that means) capitalist and socialist countries doesn’t actually answer that. It doesn’t take into account length of time, history, level of development, trajectory, and more, and it especially doesn’t take imperialism into account.
Those best in what we have been talking about the whole time lol. Right now those are capitalist countries. I bet socialism is great and gets better and better but it’s just not at the top yet in this. Unless there’s a better example than China ofc.
You are saying that socialism is better at this particular aspect but all I’m saying the best in it are still capitalist.
No, you pivoted the conversation to that direction. Originally we were talking about capitalist and socialist countries, and how socialist countries take better care of their working classes than capitalist countries. I gave good examples of this, but then you decided to erase context and try to compare “the best” with “the best.” This is a terrible idea for reasons I’ve already explained, doing so erases historical context, geographic differences, geopolitical tensions, and historical trends.
The only capitalist countries that have it better than China are the Nordic countries, and that’s only in some ways, not all. Further, the Nordic countries have been developed for longer, are imperialist and thus use the spoils of imperialism for their safety nets, and have not been targetted by other countries. To compare the quality of life for a worker in China vs a worker in the Nordics without taking those factors into consideration tells us nothing about the effectiveness of capitalism and socialism for the working classes.
I’m just saying it doesn’t seem like you need socialism to achieve better result in what we’re discussing. You can do it within capitalism and as it stands some capitalist countries are doing even better than the best of socialist countries.
And funny to speak about China as some new civilization with little time to develop, especially compared to Finland for example. But it’s whatever, if that feels like the answer to you then I’m fine with it. I just thought China was a poor example since rural people only got welfare in 2014 onward and whatnot.
I’m sure there’s other, out of scope things where they’re amazing.
If your safety nets are funded through underdeveloping the global south and stealing from it, and these same safety nets are eroding rather than strengthening, then it isn’t a legitimate comparison in the slightest. You keep ignoring imperialism when I bring it up, and that’s akin to saying that you can have a good quality of life in capitalism by being a capitalist.
The PRC was founded in the middle of the 20th century. Prior to its existence, China had been colonized by Britain and later Japan, and was kept as a semi-feudal backwater. The great states of China of the past had all but decayed into a shadow of their former selves through the century of humiliation. China did not truly begin its era of rapid development until it became socialist. The Nordics were beneficiaries of imperialism even prior to the founding of the PRC.
You’ve erased the scope and are trying to compare static snapshots rather than trajectories and systems. This erasure of context is the kind of vulgar materialism of pre-evolutionary biology that saw each animal as permanent and fixed, unchanging, rather than interrelated and constantly changing.
This was the original claim:
Which is true, and requires analyzing them in context of their peer countries. Imperialist countries have inflated living standards due to taking huge amounts of super-profits from the global south, therefore comparison isn’t going to be even anyways. Comparing Cuba with other Latin American countries makes a lot of sense, trying to grab “the best” of each like history is just a static snapshot and doesn’t matter is horrible for trying to see which is better.
I’m just saying that right now the best of capitalist countries beat the best of the socialist ones, at least if that best example is China (which isn’t great tbh). In theory in the future etc. but like right now.
Why would that make any sense for a kind of comparison between capitalism and socialism? Why not compare peers? And additionally, China does have good quality of life, and again is rapidly improving.
Well you’d want to see what’s currently best available. At this time, there’s countries that are doing better than best of socialist countries. Maybe it’ll change at some point, I know theoretically it should. But we don’t want to go into wild speculation
Saying that socialism is a more effective system than capitalism and that socialist countries provide better for the working classes than capitalist ones is the statement I made, and is true. Comparing “the best” (whatever that means) capitalist and socialist countries doesn’t actually answer that. It doesn’t take into account length of time, history, level of development, trajectory, and more, and it especially doesn’t take imperialism into account.
Those best in what we have been talking about the whole time lol. Right now those are capitalist countries. I bet socialism is great and gets better and better but it’s just not at the top yet in this. Unless there’s a better example than China ofc.
You are saying that socialism is better at this particular aspect but all I’m saying the best in it are still capitalist.
No, you pivoted the conversation to that direction. Originally we were talking about capitalist and socialist countries, and how socialist countries take better care of their working classes than capitalist countries. I gave good examples of this, but then you decided to erase context and try to compare “the best” with “the best.” This is a terrible idea for reasons I’ve already explained, doing so erases historical context, geographic differences, geopolitical tensions, and historical trends.
The only capitalist countries that have it better than China are the Nordic countries, and that’s only in some ways, not all. Further, the Nordic countries have been developed for longer, are imperialist and thus use the spoils of imperialism for their safety nets, and have not been targetted by other countries. To compare the quality of life for a worker in China vs a worker in the Nordics without taking those factors into consideration tells us nothing about the effectiveness of capitalism and socialism for the working classes.
I’m just saying it doesn’t seem like you need socialism to achieve better result in what we’re discussing. You can do it within capitalism and as it stands some capitalist countries are doing even better than the best of socialist countries.
And funny to speak about China as some new civilization with little time to develop, especially compared to Finland for example. But it’s whatever, if that feels like the answer to you then I’m fine with it. I just thought China was a poor example since rural people only got welfare in 2014 onward and whatnot.
I’m sure there’s other, out of scope things where they’re amazing.
If your safety nets are funded through underdeveloping the global south and stealing from it, and these same safety nets are eroding rather than strengthening, then it isn’t a legitimate comparison in the slightest. You keep ignoring imperialism when I bring it up, and that’s akin to saying that you can have a good quality of life in capitalism by being a capitalist.
The PRC was founded in the middle of the 20th century. Prior to its existence, China had been colonized by Britain and later Japan, and was kept as a semi-feudal backwater. The great states of China of the past had all but decayed into a shadow of their former selves through the century of humiliation. China did not truly begin its era of rapid development until it became socialist. The Nordics were beneficiaries of imperialism even prior to the founding of the PRC.
You’ve erased the scope and are trying to compare static snapshots rather than trajectories and systems. This erasure of context is the kind of vulgar materialism of pre-evolutionary biology that saw each animal as permanent and fixed, unchanging, rather than interrelated and constantly changing.